Skip to main content

Trademark Infringement in India

 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN INDIA


INTRODUCTION: 

The Trademark Act, 1999 is the legislation that protects trademarks in India. The Act lays down the rules dealing with registration, protection, and penalties against infringement regarding trademarks. Trademarks are given the status of intellectual property across the globe. There are many organisations, both international and national, that endeavour to protect intellectual properties such as trademarks. 

In India, the organisation that deals with the protection of trademarks are the Indian Patent Office administered by the controller General of Patents, designs and Trademarks. In simple words, trademark infringement is the unauthorised usage of a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark. The term deceptively similar here means that when an average consumer looks at the mark, it is likely to confuse him/her of the origin of the goods or services. 

TYPES OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

  1. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT: it is defined by Section 29 of the Act. There a few elements that have to be met for a direct breach to occur; they are as follows:

  • Use by an unauthorised person: this means that violation of a trademark only happens when the mark is used by a person who is not authorised by the holder of the registered trademark. If the mark is used with the authorisation of the holder of the registered trademark, it does not constitute infringement. 

  • Identical or deceptively similar: the trademark used by the unauthorised person needs to either be identical to that of the registered trademark or deceptively similar to it. The term ‘ deceptively similar’ here only means means that the common consumer ‘may’ be confused between the marks and may think of them being the same. The operational word here being ‘may’, it only needs to be proven that this is a possibility and does not require proof of actually happening. As long as there is a chance of misrecognition of the marks, it is enough for proving infringement.

  • Registered trademark: The Act only extends protection to trademarks that have been registered with the trademark registry of India. In the case of breach of an unregistered mark, the common law of passing off is used to settle disputes. It is a tort law that is used where injury or damage is caused to the goodwill associated with the activities of another person or group of persons.

  • Class of goods or services: For the infringement of the trademark, the unauthorised use of the mark has to be used for the propagation of goods or services that fall under the same class of the registered trademark.

  1.  Indirect infringement: Unlike direct infringement, there is no provision in the Act that deals with indirect infringement specifically. This does not mean that there is no liability for indirect infringement. The principle and application of indirect infringement arise from the universal law principle. It holds accountable not only the principal infringer but also anyone that abets, induces that direct offender to infringe. There are two types of indirect infringement:

  • Vicarious liability: According to Section 114 of the Act, if a company commits an offence under this Act, then the whole company will be liable. Therefore, not only the principal infringer but, every person responsible for the company will be liable for indirect infringement, except for a person who acted in good faith and without knowledge of the infringement. The elements for vicarious liability are:- When the person can control the activities of the principal infringer – When the person knows of the infringement and contributes to it – When the person may derive financial gains from the infringement The only exception to vicarious liability of a company for infringement is when the company has acted in good faith and had no idea about the infringement.

  • Contributory infringement: There are only three basic elements to contributory infringement: When the person knows of the infringement – When the person materially contributes to the direct infringement – When the person induces the principal infringer to commit infringement. In the case of contributory infringement, there is no exception as there exists no chance of the contributory infringer to act in good faith.

PENALTIES FOR TRADEMARKVINFRINGEMENT:

In India, the infringement of a trademark is a cognisable offence which means that the infringer may also face criminal charges along with civil charges. It is also not required by the Indian law for the trademark to be registered for the institution of civil or criminal proceedings. As mentioned before this is due to the common law principle of passing off. In the case of trademark infringement, the court may award the following remedies:

  1. Temporary injunction

  2. Permanent injunction

  3. Damages

  4. Account of profits (damages in the amount of the profits gained from the infringement)

  5. Destruction of goods using the infringing mark

  6. Cost of legal proceedings

In the case of a criminal proceeding, the court dictates the following punishment:

  1. Imprisonment for a period not less than six months that may extend to three years

  2. A fine that is not less than Rs 50,000 that may extend to Rs 2 lakh. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more